Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Here is the updated requirements list:
Here is a list of things that partisan monorail boosters claim as benefits but that generally aren't: - Aesthetics. As the Vancouver SkyTrain example shows, traditional rail can be built that looks very similar to monorail (the reverse is not true). Monorail guideways can be somewhat narrower than light rail guideways, but that advantage is usually (not always) canceled out by monorail's requirement for bulkier stations. Overall, aesthetics is a wash except for in a capacity niche where low platform light rail isn't possible and thus light rail's less bulky station advantage doesn't apply, resulting in an aesthetic advantage for monorail.
|
- As someone who lives in Vancouver, I should add a few points. Although having the SkyTrain elevated is great for riders, it simply can't be elevated everywhere, SkyTrain is only run elevated in areas that don't have a lot of density. It's underground downtown and run in a trench in some places. The shadow is casts would NEVER be allowed to run downtown and in fact, the fact that it casts a large shadow is one reason why the Canada Line is run predominantly underground along a boulevard until it gets to places like the airport and Richmond, where it can run in wider streets.
The new extension along the Broadway corridor will most definitely be buried due to the shadow it casts... adding to the cost significantly.
Quote:
- Cost. Monorails are no less expensive than other comparable elevated options (more so than elevated low-floor light rail, since you can never cross the tracks), and their lack of flexibility means they are much more expensive if you want to try and run them at-grade or in a subway. Overall, cost is a negative for monorails.
|
Apart from perhaps less concrete, you're more or less right about them costing about the same as other elevated systems, though these things usually are done on a project by project basis. They will be no less expensive than other subway proposals, but are less often run in subways anyhow... due to a less imposing shadow and more positive public perception of the visual intrusion on the street.
Generally, you only run at grade where there are no street crossings when you run grade separated transportation. The New Evergreen line, which will be ALRT (SkyTrain) will be run at grade along a railway corridor. I can see monorail costing more than track on ballast, simply because of materials cost but I'd imagine it's more or less a wash.
Quote:
- Capacity. Monorail capacity is comparable to elevated/grade-separated light rail with high platforms, slightly higher than elevated/grade-separated light rail with low platforms, but lower than heavy rail metro systems. Overall, monorail doesn't offer any capacity advantage over any other mode, resulting in a wash.
|
Capacity is purely a capacity of how long your trains are and how often you run them. That's it!
Railway stations are super long but generally don't run as frequently unless grade separated like High Speed Rail.
Light Rail with a moderate number of level crossings may have longer stations but runs less frequently (especially off-hours) to save money on manpower.
Calgary's LRT is a great example. Fantastic system which carries a LOT of people. Platform lengths are 80-110m. Weekday Ridership:
South - 110,300
Northwest - 79,500
Northeast - 64,000
Downtown (free fare zone) - 22,800
They runs trains interlined downtown every 5/6 minutes (interlined downtown it's about every 2/3 minutes) during the rush... however every 15 minutes in off-peak hours.
They have a lot of grade separation, a lot of running beside highways. Downtown, they want to run 4-car trains, but need to bury the stations in order to do that... which costs a lot of money.
Now look at Vancouver's Canada Line.
Station lengths are 40m (less than half Calgary's average length)
Trains run every 3-6 minutes most of the day (grade separated, automated).
Quote:
- Automation. Any grade-separated transitway can use automated vehicles. This is a wash.
|
This is totally true. However, you can't have both... automating Light Rail takes away many of the advantages it has... flexibility, cost, inobtrusiveness...
Quote:
Now here is a list of the things that MUST be true for monorail to be competitive with light rail. You need ALL the things on this list to be true for monorail simply to break even with light rail:- You have already decided that your line is going to be 100% elevated regardless of what type of train you ultimately choose.
- Your capacity needs fall in the "medium-heavy" range, high enough to require 100% grade-separation but lower than heavy rail.
- You must not care about interoperability with other existing or planned segments of your transit system, or freight.
|
Good points, however the order is a bit off. 100% grade-separation should be the first question. Do you want to automate the line? Do you want improved service in the off-peak at lower cost? Do you have an unacceptable level of level crossings?
The last point about interoperability is absolutely true. However, that being said, I'm not currently aware of any true mass transit system (commuter rail excluded... as that's a bit of a different scenario) in which interoperability with freight is important... In fact, many transit agencies run different systems on different lines. Vancouver, for one.
Cirrus, I totally respect your view on monorail and for many installations, especially in the US which doesn't have dense downtowns and generally has wide boulevards in which to run LRT down.
I, personally, would like to see monorail be "considered" in more corridors, simply because ANY elevated systems are a joy for the rider and make transit a much more visible and enjoyable experience. When you're in a train whizzing by cars below, when you're in a car watching the train whiz by. These things have a visceral effect on people.
I think it has an opportunity to give cities that can't afford a fully grade-separated subway a relatively fair cost way into the mass-transit market. I also feel grade-separation attracts far more riders away from their cars... and since monorail is, by design, grade-separated... I like that.
I have nothing against Light Rail... but I think it still relegates transit to "the inferior route" and doesn't do enough for the image that "transit is slow" and "transit is for poor people and immigrants" that is all too common in the US.
The one advantage that I think Light Rail has the potential to do is it can be used to reshape streets, slow down (calm) traffic, and create a nicer streetscape. However, that really depends on the city's planning department.... and people generally don't like it when you say that the shiny new train will slow down their commute.